Valuing and supporting regional engagement activities. David Charles, EPRC, University of Strathclyde

Transcription

1 Valuing and supporting regional engagement activities David Charles, EPRC, University of Strathclyde

2 Three main elements Making engagement visible Measuring activity Encouraging or rewarding engagement Mainly drawing on UK experience

3 Making engagement visible What do we include in engagement? Not just about business regional development is more complex than that Includes regional sensitivity in core mission Voluntaristic activities Staff engagement scholarship of engagement University strategic orientation - stewardship of place

4 Cycle of engagement Building and strengthening requisite relationships with local partners Increasing awareness of local partners regarding opportunities and resources available through the institution Working proactively with those partners to identify needs and opportunities for engagement Encouraging students and faculty to engage with community needs and rewarding such engagement

5 A hidden activity Unless universities audit these things then they usually don t know how much is going on Much engagement falls into the individual category Central university policies can have perverse impacts on place and hence on the university Regional studies of engagement activity UK examples, OECD reviews

6 HEFCE/UUK Regional Mission project Capacity building project working with 9 regional HE associations series of reports to make engagement visible Dynamic impacts on the competitiveness of the regional economy Impact on urban and rural regeneration Lifelong learning and employability The cultural agenda Social wellbeing and health Sustainability Contribution to regional institutional capacity

7 Measurement and assessment issues Qualitatively different to assess than teaching and research Not same consensus over idea of quality Not simply in control of university Does not indicate institutional excellence Partly dependent on external demand and environment Subjective assessment depending on perspective

8 Different forms of KT and RE Different paths to KT research exploitation or informal exchange KT as codified vs tacit knowledge who benefits? Other forms of engagement cultural, social, governance relationships etc Are we assessing university or regional environment? Varied possible forms of excellence, some easier to measure than others

9 Simple exploitation measures Patents, licences, spin offs, contract income Discipline-specific opportunities and partly demand driven Example of HEBCIS survey in UK, AUTM in US and Canada Different rankings of universities for different indicators

10 Source HEBCIS Universities with the highest number of spin offs where the university has some ownership in 2007/8 and in 2010/11 University ranking 2007/8 University ranking 2010/11 1 University of Leicester 14 Loughborough University 15 2 Imperial College London 11 Royal College of Art 15 3 University of Leeds 8 Heriot-Watt University 15 4 Liverpool John Moores University 7 The University of Leicester 14 5 University of Bradford 7 Coventry University 11 6 Napier University 7 The University of Plymouth 9 7 Brunel University 7 The University of Bradford 7 8 University of Ulster 7 The Institute of Cancer Research 7 9 University of Newcastle upon Tyne 5 University College London 7 10 Robert Gordon University 5 Edinburgh Napier University 7 11 University of Birmingham 4 Cranfield University 6 12 University of Edinburgh 3 The University of Hull 6 13 De Montfort University 3 Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine 6 14 Royal College of Art 15 University of the Arts London 16 University of Manchester 17 University of Strathclyde 18 University of Hertfordshire 19 University of Durham 20 University of Hull The University of Oxford 6 University of Hertfordshire 5 The University of Liverpool 5 Middlesex University 5 The University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne 5 The University of Edinburgh 5 University of Durham 4

11 Source HEBCIS Most active universities for graduate start ups Number of graduate startups 2007/8 Number of graduate start-ups 2010/11 University for the Creative Arts 160 Kingston University 179 De Montfort University 147 Royal College of Art 160 Royal College of Art 140 The University of Central Lancashire 158 Kingston University 131 University College Falmouth 127 University of Central Lancashire 126 Cardiff University 114 University of the Arts London 115 The University of Portsmouth 113 University of Bedfordshire 112 University of Bedfordshire 96 University of Wales Institute, Cardiff 69 De Montfort University 96 University of Portsmouth 65 Teesside University 95 University of East Anglia 54 Loughborough University 89 University of Derby 53 The Manchester Metropolitan University 85 Leeds Metropolitan University 40 University of Derby 65 University of Northumbria at Newcastle 39 The University of East Anglia 61 Southampton Solent University 31 Cardiff Metropolitan University 61 Bournemouth University 28 University for the Creative Arts 60

12 Benchmarking instead of ranking Comprehensive set of indicators Identify areas of strength and weakness University and partners to decide on prioritisation Benchmarking with other universities to learn how to improve those areas seen as important Differentiation as an objective to better meet needs of stakeholders

13 Engagement embedded in university vision and mission Vision and mission does not recognise engagement as a key role for the university Some reference to the need to engage with the region is placed in the vision or mission, usually in terms of identifying a regional community as being of interest. Vision is developed from a topdown position and is not driving strategy or seen as an influence on staff behaviour. Engagement is a central element of the vision and mission and is the result of a sophisticated debate within the institution involving staff from various levels of the institution. Engagement is seen as part of the DNA of the university and is considered as important in everything they do.

14 Rewarding and valuing engagement No staff incentives for engagement positive discrimination against engagement in promotions processes with an emphasis on research. Formal recognition of engagement in promotions procedures as one of the areas of performance that can be recognised, but little evidence of it having major impacts on behaviour. Little recognition elsewhere in the system. Engagement is tolerated and possibly rewarded where excellence is achieved but not systematically. Clear and well communicated recognition of engagement in a wide range of staff policies. Engagement is supported through workload and line management and good performance is recognised in promotion and through salary. Resources are available to help staff develop engagement skills including study leave. University recognises scholarship of engagement.

15

16

17 Encouragement of engagement Government support and funding for engagement University strategies, policies and incentives Development of a culture or scholarship of engagement

18 UK Government initiatives in 2000s DTI white paper in 1998, Building the Knowledge Driven Economy 12 Science Enterprise Centres through the Science Enterprise Challenge Cambridge-MIT Institute (CMI) University Challenge Fund with funding from the Treasury, Wellcome Trust and Gatsby Charitable Foundation Higher Education Reach Out to Business and the Community launched first tranche of 60 million for three-year projects in 87 institutions or consortia: second round 22 million in 2000 with 50 awards (11 collaborative projects) University innovation Centres, large, regionally-based, research and innovation centres often focused on collaboration between HEIs e.g. nanotechnology in Newcastle Higher Education Innovation Fund RDA initiatives through single pot Different schemes in Scotland, Wales and NI

19 And more. Lambert review strengthens understanding of the regional role RDAs with Science Councils and new centres of excellence HEFCE support for further regional collaboration Active Community Fund Science Cities Beacons of public engagement then Catalyst programme Catapult centres

20 University internal changes Boundary spanning units Promotion criteria and parallel career tracks Senior management roles Specialist strategic engagement units KE and engagement strategies New campus concepts

21 Creating a culture of engagement It already exists to some degree among academic staff Needs formal recognition and support Capacity building is a key element Careful with assessment as will skew activity Use measurement to achieve wider goals, not to create rankings for the sake of rankings

22

23